3 ms·
Let us leave aside my use of designers for a moment and turn to the actual businesses that constitute the media. On the one hand, media businesses are, in most
by sah2ed 7y ago
Let us leave aside my use of designers for a moment and turn to the actual businesses that constitute the media.
On the one hand, media businesses are, in most cases, for-profit enterprises similar to other enterprises.
On the other hand, “to inform” or to have better informed citizens is in the public interest. “To inform” essentially an altruistic goal. Something done for the greater good is hard to monetize unless you ask for donations. Altruism as a business model will not pay the salaries of journalists.
My argument is that the two goals: “for profit” and “to inform” are incompatible goals — either you found a non-profit media entity with the altruistic goal of better informing people, or you found a for-profit without the pretension of altruism.
By arguing that “I and perhaps many other people think the media should inform people”, that the media’s collective purpose is to better inform, essentially what you are really saying is that you want for-profit enterprises to behave in the manner expected of non-profit enterprises? As I said, this is a noble but unrealistic ask. This is the crux of our disagreement.
- perl4ever 7y ago"what you are really saying is that you want for-profit enterprises to behave in the manner expected of non-profit enterprises" I mean, I do want them to behave differently that they have been previously, I don't know how you could interpret my comments otherwise. I feel like you are arguing by definition - you have some definition of "for profit entities" that excludes morality. A definition can be anything you like, but I don't think that particular one has a referent in the real world - and it's obvious to me that it shouldn't. So, for profit businesses operate under constraints already, and the only debate I can imagine is under what sort of constraints.